-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
NRL-786 new parent class that does not allow extra fields for pydantic models #781
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
💥 Something went wrong while building the pull request environment. |
💥 Something went wrong while deploying the pull request environment. |
🚀 PR environment successfully deployed. |
🚀 PR environment successfully deployed. |
🚀 PR environment successfully deployed. |
|
🚀 PR environment successfully deployed. |
💥 Something went wrong while building the pull request environment. |
💥 Something went wrong while building the pull request environment. |
💥 Something went wrong while building the pull request environment. |
|
💥 Something went wrong while deploying the pull request environment. |
🚀 PR environment successfully deployed. |
|
||
|
||
class ParentExtension(BaseModel): | ||
valueCodeableConcept: Annotated[ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we want to allow producers to define their own extensions, do we need value
to be more generic to support extensions with values of types other than CodableConcepts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure I've just kept the extension as its always been defined but could make it more generic ?
No description provided.